'Panic in Progressive Park' -- What If Trump Is Actually Good?

People who swallowed the false narratives that poured out of the left, progressives and media (and yes, that's redundant) are shocked, pessimistic and sometimes even fearful of preposterous notions of horrors coming to get them.

But what if Trump actually is good?
Will they be able to relax and enjoy the ride, or will they loose eight years of their lives wallowing around in dysfunctional and self-inflicted misery.

 

He's bankrupted most of his companies and has the temperment of one of the bratty teenage girls from my super sweet sixteen.

 

Think your proving his point.

 

He will be good. 2020 is all but locked up already, they just don't know it. Like this past election.

 

Sour and bitter.
So much nicer to feel our new president's optimism.

 

if that were true the democrats would be openly supporting him.
Congratulations on your birthday.

 

lol that was a good one!

 

No danger of him being good,He's already upset the Chinese and he hasn't taken office yet.

 

(*)(*)(*)(*) China we should abolish free trade with them, Mexico, and any other country that does not have labor protections and health and safety regulations on par with or better than our own.

The quickest way to stop outsourcing is to abolish free trade with any country which allows sweatshops, the main reason for outsourcing

 

That is just a great point. That most assuredly is their greatest nightmare.

This is already becoming evident with the Ford and Carrier deals and the selection of his cabinet. Obama is the guy who face-planted on the delivery of Obamacare, the nation that did the moonshot on 1960's technology suddenly couldn't even deliver a website on time? How humiliating! Contrast that with Trump who manages a global multibillion dollar empire known for one thing, consistently delivering projects on time and under budget.

Obama's cabinet picks had one thing in common: they were all ideological leftists who fell in line with the president's thinking. They thought like Obama, they shared the same background. They were educated at elite universities in the Northeast, held advanced degrees, and had no idea whatsoever how the real world operated. Over Credentialed and Under Qualified.

The ineffectual Obama cabinet included Hillary Clinton. She brought chaos to Libya, Syria, Egypt, Bahrain, and Iraq and executing a failed "reset" with Vladimir Putin, Clinton was replaced by the equally inept John Kerry. Clinton and Kerry operated as extensions of Obama's fantasy of befriending our enemies and dissing our friends. Eight years later, our enemies disdain us, while our friends doubt our resolve.

Obama ideologues populated the original cabinet and led to the failed jobs recovery, the undermining of the rule of law, the depletion of our military, and a swath of terrorist attacks on our homeland. Their replacements were no improvement. Economic growth did not return in Obama's second term, and America is more vulnerable than ever.

Ivy League dreamers have run the country for eight years, and run it into the ground. The lack of principle and resolve in Obama's cabinet meant that there was no healthy discussion of policy issues. The White House became a house of mirrors in which the cabinet rubber-stamped the president's wishes, resulting in unpopular, unsuccessful, and unconstitutional policies that offended a majority of voters in Middle America. The only cabinet member who stood up and resigned was Robert Gates, the holdover defense secretary from the Bush years.

Noticeably missing in Obama's cabinet have been those with a true affinity for the American heartland. Rural voters, including Southerners and those from other regions, have had little if any representation at the highest level of government. Obama's disdain for those "clinging to their guns and religion" was obvious before his election, but it was confirmed by the cabinet.

Lacking among Obama's picks were independent thinkers willing to stand on principle. Obama presided over the most politicized administration since FDR, political expediency governed every decision, even those critical to our national defense. Obama's cabinet committed one foreign policy fiasco after another, from ending the surge in Iraq to fomenting the Arab Spring that brought chaos to the Middle East to the Iran deal.

Mistakes like this will not happen in a Trump administration, with Rep. Mike Pompeo at the CIA and, possibly, General James Mattis as secretary of defense.

Nor can anyone who examines the résumé of Betsy DeVos, Trump's choice for education secretary, accuse her of lacking principles or resolve. She has devoted much of her life and fortune to reforming America's failing public school system. She will not abandon her principles once she takes charge of the Education Department.

Wilbur Ross, reportedly Trump's choice for commerce secretary, is the 78-year-old head of one of the most successful private equity firms in the country. He got there with intelligence and hard work. He understands what makes businesses succeed. He has a lot to offer in terms of reforming our nation's trade policies and creating American jobs.

Trump's pick for Treasury secretary is Stephen Mnuchin, a former Goldman Sachs executive and now a major Hollywood producer, is a breath of fresh air after eight years of Timothy Geithner and Jacob Lew, both of whom seem to think more regulation and higher taxes are the way to grow the economy.

Rep. Tom Price at Health and Human Services will be key to unraveling Obamacare.

Those mentioned for energy secretary are equally impressive: Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (also rumored to be a candidate to head the EPA); Harold Hamm, CEO of Continental Resources, one of the nation's largest energy producers; Mary Fallin, governor of a large oil- and gas-producing state; and former governor Rick Perry of Texas. Compared to Obama's Stephen Chu, an academic seemingly focused on blocking energy production rather than increasing it, any of these would be a vast improvement. Also rumored are Bobby Jindal for Health and Human Services; Ben Carson for HUD director, and Forrest Lucas for agriculture secretary.

The pattern is clear: Trump is seeking the best man or woman for the job, and he is bringing in accomplished candidates from the real world outside politics. Unlike his predecessor, Trump is not imposing an ideological litmus test. He is seeking hard-driving pragmatists who will get the job done.

Trump's picks to date, and those under serious consideration, are the most impressive group since Reagan's cabinet in 1981, which included George Schultz, Edwin Meese, James Baker, and Caspar Weinberger. If confirmed, Trump's cabinet will include the largest number of individuals with business experience since Eisenhower's cabinet in 1953, of which more than half came from the private sector.

Trump is unlikely to lose touch with or respect for the base that elected him. His appointment of Steve Bannon as special adviser and Jeff Sessions as attorney general assures that he will remain a reliable conservative. His future appointments to key posts in the EPA, NLRB, SEC, and FCC should return these agencies to their constitutional limits.

Unlike Obama, Trump is appointing men and women with real-world experience and strong character. For eight years, Obama has surrounded himself with a collection of sycophants while the real policy making took place in his head. Isolating himself in the company of Valerie Jarrett and Michelle didn't help.

After selecting the best talent available, Trump listens to his advisers, and he isn't loath to cut ties with those who fail to produce. Both Paul Manafort and Chris Christie, Trump's top advisers during the campaign, were shown the door when they became liabilities.

With fifty years of successful business experience, Trump is a keen judge of character, and he is a demanding boss. He is surrounding himself with principled and experienced individuals. The next eight years should be "great" for America.
~
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/12/trumps_cabinet_character_and_ability_not_politics.html#ixzz4RoDiqfNo[/url]

 

Such drivel. The only things that offended me are what I heard Trump say and what he said he wants to do.., you know, use nukes, kill innocent family members of terrorists, carpet bomb innocent people, torture people like a freaking Nazi, nutty conspiracy theories, intentionally creating division and inciting violence, you know, what tyrants do. All of this nonsense about false narrative is right-wing nuttery.

 

Give the left some credit, their (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing about the Carrier jobs deal will be sure to help them next election with people who prefer unemployment and welfare

is making the Chinese happy and rich part of what a US president is supposed to do ? Here I thought he was supposed to look out for American interests

 

Of course not.
But upsetting a major trading partner is not in America's interest.
Talking to the Taiwan government in private is one thing but to broadcast the fact to the world is the height of stupidity.

 

If you think that is the "height of stupidity"...you are just not giving the new administration a fair chance!

 

and I suppose you have more experience in business than Trump. Here is a hint, the Chinese economy depends on us buying things, not the other way around. There is nothing the Chinese can make that we cannot make on our own

 

And upsetting the Chinese is a bad thing why? He's not the type to be submissive.

 

Upsetting one of your largest trading partners is a stupid thing.
Not saying he should be submissive but to show some common sense.

 

My personal experience has nothing to do with it.
It is about his stupidity and inability to keep anything confidential.

 

I might have set the bar on the low side, more in hope than expectations.

 

Rush famously said, " I hope he fails". He wanted obama to fail implementing his agenda because it would be bad for America. Democrats want Trump policies to fail because it would be good for America and bad for the Democrat party.

 

I would say China needs upset. They have the wind at their backs and the playing field tilted in their favor right now and that must end.

 

There is room for argument about that ,but his is not the way to discuss it.

 

Yes, but with the wages we pay, we cannot afford to buy what we make on our own.

 

I would be overjoyed if Trump ends up a good president. If somehow there exists an alignment where meeting his personal desires coincides with meeting the needs of the country, he could do great, even if it's only coincidental.

I certainly don't want him to do bad or to fail, that doesn't exactly help me or the country. But that doesn't mean I think he's going to be successful, at least for the on the ground realities of most working Americans.

 

You beat me to it!

As much as I hate to admit it, we've gotten to the point where we pretty much have to rely on cheap goods from abroad.

Set aside all the costs we'd incur having to re-tool our economic engine drastically back to the mass production side - the blow we'd incur from having to balance wages to cost of goods would be staggering.

We'd inevitably favor on the side of wages...which would drive up costs...which would drive up wages...ad infinitum.

Bottom line: we'd have to really steer ourselves down a VERY straight & narrow course to avoid runaway inflation.

Our path is already narrow enough as it is.